NOW Showing: Now Regular and Now Light Italic

dezcom's picture

Adding to the NOW Sans family--here are the Regular and Light Italic weights to go with the Light and Bold previoiusly posted.

I have just edited the f and posted a new PDF.

Just been “f” ing around with my f and f ligs—also “a”
. See new PDF

I just de-linked my f ligs and posted a new PDF.

One more fling at the f and ligs on new pdf.

Just made changes to the italis mostly and respaced the regular f ligs to make Tiff's name work:-)

One more PDF with several changes before Beantown beckons :-)

ChrisL

AttachmentSize
NOW_reg,liteital.pdf88.78 KB
NOW_reg,liteital2.pdf89.15 KB
ffing around now.pdf21.36 KB
ffing around now2.pdf20.69 KB
ffing around now3.pdf20.59 KB
NOW_reg,liteital8-06.pdf48.57 KB
NOW_reg,liteital08.pdf124.38 KB
dezcom's picture

The previous threads for Bold and Light Roman were at:

http://typophile.com/node/16894

and Here is the original thread for the Light version:

http://typophile.com/node/16147

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

zapped

Miguel Sousa's picture

Chris, I really like how the design renders on the image you posted. But when I open the PDF and see the glyphs in large size, some of them don't live up to the expectations. I'm not quite sure how to explain it. Might be the sharp stroke endings.

dezcom's picture

Miguel,
Which glyphs?
Also, sometimes I do things for text sizes which don't translate at large sizes. I guess that is why multiple versions are made for different sizes. Some day I will get to that.

ChrisL

track and kern's picture

Hello Chris:

I have just a few comments:

To begin with, the light weight of NOW is very handsome and set's well in small sizes. Of the weights shown here, it is by far my favorite.

The things I notice most and question are here:

I am not a fan of the ligatures where you have extended the terminal of the "f". In comparison to the regular glyph, it is definitely the obvious solution, but it does feel a little bit alien to the font.

The branch (is this the right term) on the lower-case "r" is also troubling. It seems a little light, and I notice it when I compare it to other stroke weights. Realizing that it needs to be optically adjusted, or that this is an artistic decision, I suppose it doesn't need tweaking. After all, in comparison with other horizontal strokes, such as the cross stroke on the "f", it seems as though it has been properly proportioned.

The Pilcrow has a small notch missing from it, interesting design. The radical is also a bit interesting, as it is missing the horizontal stroke that follows from the top of the diagonal. This isn't a mistake in the least; I have just tended to feel that a radical without the added stroke isn't as recognizable. I think it has to do with the connection I made with drawing so many radicals in school under which I had to align a series of complicated numbers and variables.

-Matt

Miguel Sousa's picture

These are snapshots of different zoom from the PDF.

200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
900%
1000%

Do you see how the curves seem to change as the size goes bigger? It's quite noticeable in the overhang of the 'f', whereas the tail of the 't' maintains the same shape overall.
I think I prefer the "type of roundness" of the smaller sizes (e.g. I like the 'f' at 300%, but not the 400% upwards).

track and kern's picture

i think Miguels comment relates the the one I made about the extended terminal on all your ligatures containing the letter "f". I don't see it as severe as what he is pointing out above, but I definitely notice it in the ligatures.

dezcom's picture

Matthew and Miguel,
Is it the underside of the top curve of the "f" or the "a" (or both)?
I seem to have this difficulty on curves sublty approaching the horizontal. I am wondering if it is a resolution issue. This shows up more in my hairline face (NOW Gaunt) where the stroke is only 14 units wide. Would increasing UPM help?

ChrisL

William Berkson's picture

I think maybe the 'hooky' effect that Miguel points out is due to the ascender on the f swelling slightly toward the very end. This is mitigated by the screen at small sizes. This might be mitigated in the drawing by making the outlines toward the end slightly more parallel or slightly narrowing, or slightly shorter, or a combination of these. This a matter of only a few units.

The hooking strokes on your a and t light do not swell toward the end at all, and I don't think have the issue that Miguel point to in the f. Some of your other strokes, like in the s do, so you might want to check those and see if you like them that way or like the a and t.

Frutiger handled his terminals in the 'Frutiger' typeface--which I know you also admire--a lot of different ways with great finesse so you might find some inspiration looking back again at it.

ps. I still think, like some others, that straight i and j top stems would be better.

track and kern's picture

I only notice this effect on the overhang of the "f" Chris, I think that "a" is fine.

dezcom's picture

Thanks Matthew, that helps me see what you all have been saying.

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

I just posted a revision with the lower case f fixed. It actually didn't swell originally but was an illusion so I narrowed the tip more and softened the curve.

ChrisL

track and kern's picture

i see more problem with the ligatures still. i realize that you simply attached the overhang of the "f" with the "l", but i would consider a different solution. I was thinking about this on the way home a while ago, and I think that shortening the "l" would allow you to give the overhang of the "f" a curve that would suit it better. Simply stated, I am not a fan of how in the ligatures that have two "f"s, the first is attached at a lower point on the "f" then where it meets the "l". I hope that makes sense, with the pics kinda struggling with the proper terminology on this one.

The top set is from the original, and the bottom from the repost (not even sure if there was a change made here).

dezcom's picture

Matthew,
I did not change the ligs at all yet, I only did the single f first to see if it worked before I went back to redo the ligs. Good idea about dropping the l height though, I will try it. Thanks!

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

Has anyone looked at the italics yet?

ChrisL

Miguel Sousa's picture

Chris,
The 'hooky' effect I notice, I believe is not so much caused by the flaring of the terminals, but rather due to the high shoulder of the 'f', which forces you to do a tighter curve. Perhaps the overhang stroke should start branching from the stem sooner, which would make the curve more full. (Not quite sure if I'm making sense...)

I'm of the visual kind, so here's an illustration:


Do you see how the curve on the 't' looks more balanced? It's not as noticeable on the flipped 'f'. Also, the stroke on the 'a' seems "broken" and a little stiff.

(Please ignore my comments whenever you feel like. I might be rambling... seriously ;^)

[Edit] Caption:
a -- 1st arrow means "pull up", 2nd arrow means "there's a kink here".
f -- 1st arrow means "there's something wrong with this curve, it's too 'high'", 2nd arrow means "pull the curve inwards", and 3rd arrow means "pull up".
The red dots on the f are signaling the nodes. You might need to move them, in order to get a "rounder" curve.

dezcom's picture

Miguel,
In the places you have drawn your red arrows, are you saying that I should move the points in that direction or the opposite?

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

Still not a mentiopn of the italics? The italics are on the same PDF but in the later pages.

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

Here is a PNG file to show the italics:

ChrisL

dan_reynolds's picture

Chris, these Italics are beautiful!

I think that the f is too stunted… looks like the old metal typefaces. The j is much more open. Even the t feels more open, and t and f should normally have the same sort of "width" in a design like this.

Because of the "American" curve-tail on your q, the overall descender-to-body ration looks out of balance for that letter (in plain-speak: the descender looks too short!).

The k looks like it kills the motion of the line, sneding the eye downward rather than to the right, into the next letter.

I don't like taper on the bottom of the e… it looks like your pen ran out of ink and you were finishing up the stroke ;-)

I like the narrow caps. Some of them might be able to go narrower still (O, Q, U, W, M?)

William Berkson's picture

Caps. Is the A too wide? M looks wide. O --something seems a little off--is it that the nw and se are not symmetrical? S - the bottom seems a bit big or the top needs a bigger radius or something.

Lower case. This seems to me 'off'--not coming together like the rest of the face, which is strong. I'm not sure why. Here are some guesses: Are the ace too wide compared to the bd? You have no entry serifs on the ascenders or the tops of the uvwy, but you have square entry strokes on the ij and round ones on the mnrx. You have no exit serifs on the mnh, but you do on the ild. I don't say this all has to be the same, but it feels to me like it doesn't quite fit together. The v looks like it can't quite decide what angle it wants to be...

dezcom's picture

Thanks Dan!

Darn that "American" q tail! (What do you expect from a country that took the "u" out of color)
I see what you mean about the e and the f. I will fuss with the lower curve of the k as well.
Regarding the caps, I think I need to narrow the D as well as the letters you mentioned. The tail on the cap J needs attention as well.

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

Hi William, New Avatar?

The entry/exit stokes folow the same pattern as thew roman except for the i and j which need to be futzed with. I have been messing with the v quite a bit--thought I had it this time though :-)
The ace vs bd thing is still driving me crazy. There are whacky illusions happening in italc glyphs!

ChrisL

William Berkson's picture

>The entry/exit stokes folow the same pattern as thew roman except for the i and j which need to be futzed with.

Yeah, but the eye expects something different from the roman, so the effect is different...

>whacky illusions happening in italc glyphs

Tell me about it; the italic has just about driven me nutty--or should I say more nutty!--on my project. The only way I was able to resolve my problems at least to my satisfaction was just to vary everything on each letter--angles, widths, weights, terminals, joins--until it fit with the rest.

Miss Tiffany's picture

I agree with Miguel's comments about the f and the ligs. It looks flat and should probably follow the curve of the t more closely.

I hadn't noticed the italics. They are lovely.

e and c -- same problem as Dan mentioned.
f -- agree with Dan. My name typeset would have an odd cramp in the center.
q -- agree with Dan, but does that mean the p needs more too?
Q -- tail too long
A -- too wide?
J -- termination angle seems too flat
C -- bottom termination seems too steep
W -- too wide?
k -- something nice about it. not sure if i agree with Dan.

rs_donsata's picture

Great work Crhis, congratulations.

I think the lower ending of te G is too hard on the transition to the horizotal, also the D feels like expanded from left to right.

Héctor

dezcom's picture

Thanks Tiff and Héctor, and Thank you all! I see I have lots of work to do!

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

William,
We need an "Italics Give us the Blues" theme song :-)

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

I have worked on the Regular (Just been “f” ing around with my f and f ligs—also “a”)
See new PDF above.

ChrisL

Miguel Sousa's picture

>In the places you have drawn your red arrows, are you saying that I should move the points in that direction or the opposite?

Sorry, I should have added a caption. It's fixed now.

>I have worked on the Regular (Just been “f” ing around with my f and f ligs

Chris, don't get me wrong, but I think this typeface is crying out for unconnected f-ligs. You're forcing the overhang to bend down way too much, which is quite distracting when I read a word with ligatures (and perhaps even a single 'f').

dezcom's picture

Thanks Miguel. now I get it.
Do you think the fi lig should also be disconnected?

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

Miguel,
I just took your suggestion about unlinking the f ligs. I also shortened the hook on the single f. See new PDF above.

ChrisL

Miss Tiffany's picture

Looking at you latest, the disconnected ligs are much better. Good call. I think the "fl" and the "fi" combos are too tight (which includes the "ffi" and the "ffl"), but maybe the other spacing isn't done?

dezcom's picture

Thanks Tiff,

I'll take a look at the spacing.

ChrisL

Miguel Sousa's picture

Aaahh! Now it looks more like it (an 'f', that is). However, now the glyph feels quite narrow, in comparison with the rest. Here's my suggestion: maintain the length of the crossbar, and extend the overhang by 1/3 of the crossbar. Do this simply by moving the 2 corner points of the terminal over to the right. Important: resist the temptation of moving these points down; only right (and up) is allowed (!!).
Also, you might need to rotate those 2 points counter-clockwise a bit, so that the exit angle of the overhang is a tad more horizontal. Ok, now the tricky part: reshape the 'f' curve (sorry, no intention to be rude ;), in order to get a full-round-&-smooth curve, from the stem all the way to those 2 corner points (that you did NOT move ;). You might need to fiddle around with the nodes I marked red on the image a few posts above. BUT, move those 4 points only along their respective axis (i.e. top points: move horizontally)

>Do you think the fi lig should also be disconnected?

Can't tell yet. We'll need to see how the new overhang comes up :)

dezcom's picture

I'll try and hang in there with you while we are f-ing around with the hanging curve ball :-)

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

Miguel,
I corrected and lengthened the f hook and ligs. See what you think about the last PDF above.

ChrisL

Miguel Sousa's picture

You're definitely getting there, but IMHO it needs to be rounder still. These things are hard to explain, so here's a couple of visuals:


William Berkson's picture

To me, the main question is not whether Miguel's alternative f is 'better' in itself, but the relation of the f terminal to the rest of the face, and how it makes words together with the others. The 'best' is what works best with the rest of the face.

Eg, comparison with the hooked terminals on the a and t and s terminals is relevant, as well as the crossbar of the f and t. Does the reduced weight of the f terminal conflict with the weight of the crossbar? (On Frutiger regular the hook terminates just slightly lighter than the cross bar.) If you perceive a conflict, you can either reduce the weight of the cross bar or increase the weight of the terminal. If you reduce the weight of the cross bar, then you have to consider how it relates to the cross bar of the e and the strokes on the a and s. As to the roundness of the curve that is definitely a matter of the curves in the rest of the face. Even here you already successfuly have the pd different from the mn, so some variation can work, but not others.

It's all a question of choices in context. But don't let it drive you crazy ;)

dezcom's picture

Miguel,
Thanks for going the extra mile to define the f. I do think William has a point though. I fear if I go as round as you have shown above, I will go beyond the character of the rest of the font (as well as the other weights). The rounder f you have shown also seems too complete to me--meaning a self-sufficient individual rather than a team member. I like the tension in my latest flatter one and feel that it more closely echos the feeling in the n and m as well as the a.

I really appreciate your guidance though and the time you have so graciously spend drawing alternatives!

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

William,

Everything about type design drives me crazy. It is like raising children, every day the frustrations and fears mount but somehow, in the end, you are very happy for it and would not have it any other way.

ChrisL

dan_reynolds's picture

I will go beyond the character of the rest of the font (as well as the other weights).

I don't think that this is necessary true. Lighter weights need lots of different curve treatment than regular weights. Think of it as a continuum from one "style" of curve to another. As you add weight the curve changes along an axis.

Miguel Sousa's picture

>The rounder f you have shown also seems too complete to me—meaning a self-sufficient individual rather than a team member. I like the tension in my latest flatter one and feel that it more closely echos the feeling in the n and m as well as the a.

Yes, I agree that my alternative is tamed, compared to yours. And yes, I probably abstracted it too much from the remaining alphabet. In addition, I don't know how the design is pictured in your mind.

Nonetheless, one thing you cannot forget is that the curve on the 'f' can't be a mirrored version of the curve on the 'n' (not saying that's your case, tho). In the 't', maybe, but definitely not the 'f'. As you know, stress-angled curves can be rotated, but not flipped.
For the 'f', you probably need to look more at your design of the letters 'c' 'd' 'g' etc.

Although this is a sans-serif, some of the principles that rule the serif faces need to be observed. Otherwise, in the extreme cases, things like this may happen:
http://www.typophile.com/node/18824

You're far, far from that ;^)

dezcom's picture

Thanks Dan and Miguel,
I know what you mean Dan. I was refering to the overall character of the family. None of the curves from the other weights try to match eachother exactly.

The f is not a mirrored n, I just meant the curve flattens as it joins. You are right, c d g are better examples.

I remember that thread Miguel! Glad I am not quite that bad :-)

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

I made the fixes to the italic several of you suggested and added a double ff ligature.

ChrisL

Miguel Sousa's picture

I like it :) A few comments:

I don't think that "feature" on the 'i' and 'j' is beneficial to your typeface. This is quite noticeable on the Display weight. Also, the tail on the 'q' seems a bit forced; perhaps it just needs what you do in the 'u' (or rotate the 'i', stick it there, and see how it looks).

Is the 'r' a tad wide? Maybe trimming a bit of the arm will do the trick; and at the same time you'd get a stroke that doesn't bend down as much.

I find the crossbar of the 'e' a bit stiff. Look at your 'b' and 'p', they're much graceful.

dezcom's picture

Thanks Miguel!

I see what you mean about that e and q.

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

I just posted another PDF with the i, e and q fixed and some other stuff I am too blitzed to remember.

See MOST RECENT PDF [somehow it got posted as the first file in the list] above.

ChrisL

dezcom's picture

And here is a PNG with the italic and Gaunt:

ChrisL

Miguel Sousa's picture

I think I'm beaten :D
Lovely family! Congratulations Chris.

PS: Don't forget to change the f-ligs before you ship it ;) (pp. 10, 12)

Syndicate content Syndicate content